Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anil vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 February, 2020

Bench: Rajan Gupta, Karamjit Singh

CRWP-282-2020                                                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                    CRWP-282-2020 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 3.2.2020

Anil

                                                                ... Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                             ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present:    Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate,
            for the petitioner (s).

        Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
        *****
RAJAN GUPTA, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has prayed for three weeks furlough to meet his family members in view of Section 4(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. He has also prayed for quashing of order dated 8.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Commissioner, Karnal Division.

Reply has been filed by the State in Court wherein a stand has been taken that peace in the village may be disturbed if the petitioner is released on furlough as he has rivalry in the village. Petitioner, however, relies upon the judgment in Mukesh v. State of Haryana and others; Criminal Writ Petition No.1185 of 2016 decided on 13.2.2017 to contend that application of the petitioner has been rejected merely on apprehension. There is nothing on record to show that his release would endanger peace prevailing in the village. According to him, conduct and behaviour of the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2020 02:44:50 ::: CRWP-282-2020 2 petitioner has been found satisfactory inside the jail which is borne out from the stand taken in para. 2 of the reply.

In view of the above, we propose to set aside the order dated 8.11.2019 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Karnal and remit the matter to him for decision afresh keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment rendered in Mukesh's case (supra). Learned State counsel has no objection to this.

Accordingly, we allow this petition, set aside impugned order dated 8.11.2019 and remit the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal for decision afresh within three weeks from today.

( RAJAN GUPTA ) JUDGE ( KARAMJIT SINGH ) JUDGE February 3, 2020 Paritosh Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2020 02:44:50 :::